Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

That's a different rationale than you were offering before. It's one thing to defend the Biblical view of marriage because it appears to be mandated by the Bible; I can't argue with that because it's just a question of whether you accept the Bible or not.But before you appeared to be defending the Biblical view because it's actually effective. That, I can't let pass. The Biblical view is a repressive throwback to a time when marriage was a kind of slavery for women. It's one thing to defend it because it appears to be the will of your god but quite another to try to defend it on its own merits; on its own merits, its quite indefensable. Can you show me in the Bible where it says that God has decreed that men shall balance the checkbook and women shall cook and sew? Are you married? I've been for years. I haven't noticed the need for a "head" yet in the least; reasonable people who act like adults can always agree on what is best for the whole. The only time two people need a "head" to make decisions for both of them is if one or both of them can't reliably see beyond their own interests, and such people have no business being married in the first place. Absolutely none of these are situations where one person's opinion should overrule another, especially the first. Particularly the first. What you would describe as the man taking the lead and making the decision as the "head" of the wife, would be an illegal act of marital rape.("In creche"? I don't understand what that means. Is that an English expression of some sort?) Divorce. These are called "irreconcilable differences." If they don't want a divorce, then they figure out a compromise. But certainly the man has no right to rape and impregnate his wife, or stand in the way of her abortion, if they can't compromise about having more children. Having more children is the decision of the woman, because it's her body, no matter what. (Also it's the man's decision to donate the sperm required, if the wife wants more children but he does not.) A clever abdication, but it won't work. You've already made it clear, from previous posts, that you're trying to defend the Biblical view on its own merits. Naturally, fundamentalists would (and have) do anything that they believe God requires, beneficial or not. The question is, how is their view of marriage defensible on its own merits?

If the woman volunteers to abide by her husband's decision, well, that's another responsibility of a spouse in a marriage - to be the one who steps up and makes the hard decisions when asked to, or when placed in that position by circumstance.Part of being married is the perogative to let a decision rest with the partner, and part of being married is to accept the responsibility of decision when your partner needs you to do it. There's nothing male or female about that; it's about married people being able to rely on each other.

Sure. Why should the poor woman have to worry her little head about anything besides what's for dinner, and does the floor need sweeping?Leave them big decisions to the men-folk, right? After all, who needs freedom and self-determination? Slavery is the real freedom, right guys?

Then let him bring it to term in his uterus, then.Oh, he doesn't have one? How is that Brenn's problem?

Mine? I'm not the one advancing the idea that it's men's work to do X, but women's work to do Y. You are. I'm just trying to get you to fill in your blanks. Your alternative has one parent abdicate her responsibility to do what is best for her child. Is that a course of action that you can respect? I can't. Then who cares? If God's way doesn't lead to better marriages, why bother with it? Because it's what God wants? Who cares what he wants? Well, no, in fact civil marriage is still a contract with both your partner and your county. Even in religious marriage, God is just a witness ("we gather here in the sight of God", etc.), so there's really no difference between religious and civil marriage other than the participation of a church. Who has the better view, though, is very much at issue here. If God's plan doesn't lead to a better marriage, then how can God be said to have the better overview? Sounds like people do a lot better without him.

You presume, in this situation, that there's some evidence her husband is listening to God, and not himself. If she believes that her will is consistent with God's, and his is not, what is she to do? Trust God's general advice about husbands and wives, or trust God's specific revelation to her about what to do with her children? How else would we determine the success of marriage, except by examining the rates at which they fail?

In other words, "good things may happen if they do this, or they may not; on the other hand good things may or may not happen even if they don't." So, no specific blessing at all can be expected. So, what you're saying is that the definition of Christian means that no Christian can ever have a divorce, and that if they did have one, they're not a Christian?What's your Biblical justification for that view? Even Christ himself outlined the situations under which divorce is appropriate, so clearly divorce in some situations has the divine imprimatur. True scotsman fallacy aside - you're free to define "Christian" in any way you can support from the teachings of Christ - what's your support for your view?

I think we all understand what you mean; by submit you mean "put another's will before your own." It makes perfect sense. This, however, is double-speak. Christ did not do the father's will; Christ is the father and the son, both, so he's doing his own will. Moreover, to always do another's will is to place yourself below them. In an equal relationship, we would expect wills to converge, most of the time, and other times, for both partners to have their individual wills done on a more or less equal basis.To suggest that submission doesn't mean inferiority is to assert that words have no meaning. Wouldn't be the first time for your side, though.

The fact that Christ is superior to the man does not change the fact that the man is set as superior to the woman.The fact that the man is submitting to another power does not change the imbalance of power, because the man is not submitting to the woman. Just because my boss has a boss doesn't mean he's not my boss.So, no. It doesn't work both ways. Evangelical protestantism. Fairly mainstream. According to my church, merely God in the form of Jesus setting an example of how we're to pray and worship. He's talking to himself, but he's doing it as an example to us. As I've said, you can't submit to yourself. If you're promoting the idea that the wife submits to the husband, then you're arguing against the "one flesh" model. You can't submit to yourself, so if submission is occuring from one to the other, they, by definition, can't be one flesh. Nobody makes a claim that it's the nut's role to submit to the bolt. It's not your role to dole out reading assignments. What makes you think I have a Bible, or care to look up a verse in it?